Paul Magne Haakonsen I think I might have watched "The Vikings" way back some time in my childhood, because I do remember parts of the movie. I got the chance again to watch the movie here in 2017, so of course I jumped at the chance.It turns out that despite being from 1958 then "The Vikings" is actually a rather nice and impressive movie. And I reckon that it must have been some epic movie back in 1958. I mean, even just by watching it today, the production value and the accomplishment of director Richard Fleischer was just astounding. There certainly was a sense of adventure and grand epic about the movie."The Vikings" had a pretty impressive cast, which included two of the biggest Hollywood stars of the day; that being Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis, of course. Now, both of them are good actors and performed quite well, but for some reason it was just a tad difficult to really envision them as being vikings, as they had too much of a pampered beauty appearance going on. It was also a treat to see Ernest Borgnine in this movie.Storywise, then "The Vikings" was entertaining, for sure, but it felt a bit too scripted and predictable.Visually then this was a very impressive movie, and they had put a lot of effort into the costumes, the props, the sets, and so on, and that really paid off quite nicely. And the movie was filmed at some locations that really worked well and added so much flavor and atmosphere to the movie."The Vikings" has a good amount of action, drama and storytelling to keep most people entertained.If you haven't already seen "The Vikings", then you should take the time to do so, because it is an entertaining movie. And don't let the 1958 time stamp discourage you, because the movie really is impressive for its age and production.

BA_Harrison Little does he realise, but slave Eric (Tony Curtis) is not only illegitimate heir to the throne of Northumbria, but also half-brother to viking warrior Einar (Kirk Douglas), with whom he has a bitter feud. When the Norsemen kidnap Welsh princess Morgana (Janet Leigh) and hold her for ransom, the unknowing half-brothers fight for her affection.In 1960, Stanley Kubrick directed celebrated historical classic Spartacus, starring Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis; two years earlier, Douglas and Curtis had appeared together in another historical adventure, The Vikings, which, as far as I'm concerned, is the superior film—less epic, perhaps, but far more entertaining than Kubrick's movie. It's got a testosterone-fuelled performance from Douglas, Curtis as the dashing hero, Ernest Borgnine as a lovable viking rogue, a marvellous villain (Frank Thring as loathsome King Aella), and Janet Leigh as a beautiful princess, as well as stunning locations, wonderful cinematography, great production values, and, best of all, a huge sense of fun, the action and adventure imbued with humour.Highlights include Kirk Douglas hopping across the oars of a viking long-ship, the use of throwing axes to prove the innocence of an unfaithful viking woman, Eric's daring escape by boat on a foggy fjord, and the rousing finale, in which Eric and Einar temporarily put their differences aside to storm King Aella's castle.

jc-osms Big budget, starry-cast, historical, make that almost pre-historical, action movie where a one-eyed Kirk Douglas plays a rumbustious (that's putting it mildly) Viking prince and his unwitting half-brother Tony Curtis (the offspring of Douglas's dad, King Ragnar's, rape of the British queen on a previous raid, years before) a soon-to-be one-handed British slave who are both vying for the love of Welsh princess Janet Leigh, whilst Ernest Borgnine as Ragnar eggs his boy on from the sidelines. There's also a minor sub-plot about the Vikings crossing the water to remove from power the new, cruel, usurping English king who's tricked Curtis's Eric out of his birthright to be king himself and who to seal the deal just happens to get himself betrothed to the young Leigh.The movie is beautifully shot in natural light in and around actual Norwegian fjords which look superb in big-screen colour and the recreation of the Viking long-boats by the film's carpenters is also remarkable, but if I'm starting a review by praising the backgrounds, it probably means there's a want in the foreground, and so it proves.Douglas's boorish Einar looks old enough to be Eric's half-father and his usually drunken behaviour hardly endears him to the viewer. At one point he is determined to rape Leigh's Princess Morgana and is only stopped by Curtis's timely intervention. Curtis's character, unusually, is a man of few words but even with a beard, the young Tony doesn't completely convince playing it strong and silent. The object of their affections, Janet Leigh, appears able to bewitch these two the minute they clap eyes on her, which I suppose is fair enough as she does look lovely in her robes, but she's not really required to do much between simpering and occasionally seething.There are some odd scenes of I presume authentic old Viking customs, if you exclude feasting, drinking and womanising on a Henry VIII scale that is, like "walking the oars" and strangest of all the method of proving a wife's infidelity which involves putting her in a set of stocks, then nailing up her outstretched hair plaits and inviting her allegedly cuckolded husband to free her by throwing axes to sever her plaits. Talk about being saved by a hair's breadth. Elswhere there's no stinting on the crowd scenes and the battle scenes are reasonably exciting if not wholly convincing. This film was reasonably entertaining as a spectacle but for me was let down by the hackneyed plotting, use of extreme coincidence and shallow characterisation. Douglas and Curtis of course would get back into tunics and sandals a few years later, but this time with a better tale to tell and under a master director in Stanley Kubrick. To paraphrase a famous line from that movie however, this film here isn't "Spartacus".

ghent1 This is certainly an OK film considering the time of its making but it misses something to truly be on a par with such classics as Ben Hur, El Cid, Spartacus and others. Although its well intentioned somehow the movie cannot really convey a sense of reality. It remains to some degree tainted by the contrivances nature of theatre. Maybe it's the fact that many vikings do not truly give a fearsome impression, maybe it's the soundtrack, maybe it's something in the screenplay which doesn't entirely convince. Probably it's all of these and many more aspects, details which give this movie more of a Sound of Music feeling than an El Cid feeling. Of course the movie's worth the see for those interested in old films of this kind, but I wouldn't say it belongs in the inner sanctuary of your truly old-time classics.